tv [untitled] August 3, 2010 6:00am-6:30am PST
it. i am thinking about how it will reduce taxes and actually collect that. >> that was a discussion that supervisors mirkarimi had with the assistant treasurer tax collector. that is something they brought up when they met with supervisor mirkarimi. there is a lot of cash business out there, particularly with small lots. that's sort of became an urban myth. you can be collecting $50 million-$80 million a year, -- $15 million a year-$18 million a year, it is something we need to be better about. and the supervisors legislation to transfer that function to the police is a good first step.
supervisor mirkarimi is looking to implement some better collection processes and use of modern technology to be sure that the garages are paying their fair share. they are paying their share on the disadvantaged -- that is something that we are pursuing as well. commissioner o'brien: i don't want to see all this effort executed on something that can't be collected on afterwards. >> they are adding positions to the tax at treasurer's office. ok. commissioner riley: we will open for public comment.
>> decommission is now taking public comment. commissioner riley: public comment is closed. do we have an action or motion? commissioner clyde: i think we like to have you guys come back in the july meeting. >> commissioner clyde, you made the suggestion about some valet reports that you wanted to make? commissioner clyde: it is a similar situation to a supervisor chiu's legislation. the only thing we can do is make recommendations, if you know,
regarding the legislation. as far as taking a position for or against, i am not ready. commissioner dooley: this is separate from the hotel tax because the board of supervisors will be voting on this to move it forward to the ballot. you can take action, you don't have to take action, but you could take action to make some recommendations or approval or not approval in terms of how or what you would recommend their action for this particular matter. just as with any other piece of legislation. it is just the only difference here is that we are working with a timing issue for it to move
through the board of supervisors. supervisor mirkarimi is hoping it will win approval to go on to the ballot. we are working with the specific tithing -- timing. there is time for us to work on it. commissioner riley: we have a few recommendations. i think we all want to recommend moving forward the valet part of the tax. >> not really, i asked a question about the gross receipts. commissioner riley: we want that clarified. >> the other was to make sure that what other measures are put in our look at successfully.
-- or looked at -- are looked at successfully. >> the commission needs clarification for valet parking, and if the information comes one way, we're not going to pit -- we are not going to take any action whatsoever? commissioner riley: there is no time for us to take action. the supervisor can think about some of the questions that we raised when we make their decisions. >> i like to include that a supervisor give consideration to the fact that the cost of this might be born by the employees of the garages, actually, and
not by the owners. and also give consideration to the loss of retail jobs. however he decides to do that, fine. we just want him to note that it is a concern. >> thank you very much. >> commissioners, is that a motion? is that a motion to make a recommendation on the ordinance, or is this direction for staff? my understanding is that the commission is generally supportive of applying the tax to the valet parking, assuming that there is not a double taxation on those charges. is that correct? or does it need to be worded
differently? commissioner riley: i think that is correct. >> and in terms of the tax increase, is the commission not supporting that or they like to draft a letter to caution the supervisor to bring those concerns? >> that is very well articulated. >> if they are not paying any tax now, they should be. i don't know how to consider that.
the commission was not going to make one decision one way or the other on its three dead -- on the other. >> i am too concerned about the impact on workers and the operation of muni overall puree dead -- overall. i cannot support that. >> i do not know if the other commissioners want to make comment on that, but you might want to think about two motions if there are significant components around valet parking for the increase in parking tax.
it is very clear moving toward what the commission is stating to the board of supervisors. >> it is the right number. >> it should be consistent. >> my understanding is that we recommend approval of the closing with the loophole in the tax not increasing but closing the loophole and clarifying there will be no form of double taxation applied.
>> if we were to make our recommendation, i would recommend we seem -- >> can i make one point of clarification? your recommendation would be that we recommend you do not approve this a 35%. you do not have to provide suggestions for the supervisor to modify it. you could say, we recommend not to approve this portion, unless you do have some modifications you would like to recommend. >> we will not recommend it. >> the second motion would be that we do not recommend
>> do we want to make a recommendation or none? >> let's make none. i do not want to take a position at this. >> you know where we are coming from. >> we do have a motion. if there is no motion, that will not move toward. >> we will be stating that we -- on the total peace, we are not saying moving forward as a
total package. >> closing the loophole. i think it is incremental, and again, with the package, it may be an incremental approach that is the best thing. >> there will be no recommendation on this ordinance. however, the commission will support us specified closing any loophole. is that accurate? >> yes. >> that is all we need. >> thank you. thank you all for your
indicated the legislative recess would be the time. increase's neighborhood, they actually received a non- compliance -- in increased costs neighborhood, they actually received a non-compliance statement. we will be meeting with the inspector to get some more information. in a short time, we have already seen one business have a complaint filed against them. in regards to the cellphone legislation, i forwarded and arguments -- forwarded an
the committee heard from small pet shop owners. the full commission was not able to hear this for. they sense a letter using very similar -- they sent a letter using similar criteria. the planning commission did votes in approval, though i am pleased commissioner antonini did stress that if it comes forward to the planning department, he hopes it is going
to be in one of the neighbors -- neighborhoods where we identified a need. there has been some about where they have weighed in. we will put that on the agenda to draft a formal comment. we talked with the mayor's office about nighttime safety with the entertainment industry. there was cooperation with the
police department to really work on minimizing safety issues together. whether they come to this commission has yet to be seen. the comptroller has issued an impact report. we will send that forward. once we do start working on this, the report tells you the economic impacts and the benefit it will have in terms of jobs. you have heard san francisco is now the city selected for the
i thought you would be interested to see what kind of data we are collecting. some are willing to be more comprehensive of the information they share. we are collecting as much as we can. >> this is to be completed by staff. >> unless you have any questions, that concludes my report. next item. >> number 11, the policy and committee report. >> we have pretty much covered all the ground we have been dealing with here in commission,
so i will end with that. >> thank you. next item please. >> item number 12. >> we had to postpone the meeting, so we will talk about it next week. >> next item please. >> item number 13, outreach committee report. >> i believe we now have a link on our web site with the requirements as well as recommendations we will take and small businesses. the website -- we have received
no responses. is that correct? >> we have received no responses on the first batch. we are waiting for specific names to make it more personalized, and after this budget season is wrapped up, we will be able to dedic -- to be able to dedicate a lot of staff time to provide you with a full picture. >> i believe this is getting more and more visible in different neighborhoods, so more people are asking for it, not only in san francisco, but i believe oakland as well. we did discuss the program